The same old and same old story repeating again. “Some are better, some are worse, but in the end, they are all the same.” In the Federalist Party it is done differently. All Party members in good standing can run for the nomination if they can be a candidate for the House of Commons. However there is section 4.7 of the constitution that states.

4.7 The Congress in regular session by an absolute three-quarters majority vote can bar a party member from being a candidate for the Federalist nomination for the House of Commons. The Congress by an absolute two-thirds majority vote can rescind the Candidacy of a member after they have won the nomination election. This is to be done within 90 days of the nomination.

There are no protected nominations, they are all open, and you want it, then earn it. There is no secretive committee deciding behind closed doors whether you can run or not.

11.3 The Leader shall sign all nomination and Election Canada papers. Any refusal shall mean the automatic and immediate expulsion from the Party.

Who pays your salary Mr. Trudeau? It’s that person asking the question. If a citizen and taxpayer ask you a question in a language you speak you answer them back in that language. I know you don’t need the money but that’s not the point. You are an employee and you’re attitude and actions doesn’t reflect an understanding of this. Your response to this becoming an issue was insulting. Big surprise, there’s a significant English population in the Townships. I thought you knew Quebec!

As I said before “Some are better, some are worse, but in the end, they are all the same” The best ones admit that they are doing a 180º from what they said in the election and explain why they are doing so. What Mr.Trudeau is doing is the usual spin we get after the election for campaign promises are used to get what you want and forgotten about afterwards. Same Old, same old. The part that bothers me the most about this is that you can be deprived of your citizenship without any hearing. Something to do with a quaint old-fashioned notion of “Your innocent until proven guilty”.

“Some are better, and some are worst, but in the end they are all the same.”

A question I haven’t heard in the comments on Mr. Trudeau’s action is Why was he out of his chair in the first place? The complete and total hypocrisy of any comments from any member of the Conservative party is lost on them.

Just like what I recommend for dealing with confirmation of appointments should be done for legislation. There is a set period of time for debate. The Commons by super majorities can shorten that debate and by minorities lengthen that debate. Something like this.

Automatic vote on a bill 180 days after introduction, unless the following

By a vote of 90% of the full House (303) bill is voted on 30 days after introduction

By a vote of 75% of the full House (252) 60 days

By a vote of 67% of the full House (224) 90 days

By a vote of 60% of the full House (202) 120 days

By a vote of 50% of the full House (168) 360 days

By a vote of 33% of the full House (112) 270 days

By a vote of 25% of the full House (84) 240 days

By a vote of 10% of the full House (34) 210 days

The Liberals by themselves don’t have the votes to bring a bill to a vote faster then the set 180 days. The opposition combined could set a bill vote back to 9 months after being introduced. The conservatives alone could lengthen the debate to 8 months and the NDP by itself to 7 months. If the Liberals got the agreement of the NDP they could pass a bill 90 days after it being introduced and with the Conservatives 60 days after introduction.

The majority can’t ram through and the minority can’t block.

“The power of democracy is vested in the majority and in the minority it’s principle.” Barry Aulis

As always with the change of government the new one promptly starts behaving like the previous government they criticized while in opposition. As with all these Political Monarchs (PM / Premier) “Some are better, some are worse, but in the end, they are all the same.”

There is to be created the Council of State which consists of the Council of Ministers and the Council of Opposition. This would include only those who hold the senior portfolios of the ministers of the crown as defined in an Act of Parliament and not the whim of the PM (Political Monarch) of the day. Equal number of members from both the government and the opposition of the day and presided over by the Governor-General. It would be this body that sets the rules governing the communications policy of the government of Canada and it’s departments and agencies. This requires a 2/3 majority vote of the council if introduced by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. If introduced be just one of them then it requires a three-quarter majority vote.

Also as a direct subsidiary body you would have the Federal Government Communication Office (FGCO) charged with overseeing the implementation of federal communication policy. Chairman would be the Minister of state responsible for the FGCO and deputy chairman the opposite number in the Opposition. Also included are the minister of public service, the minister of heritage, and their opposite numbers in the Council of Opposition. At the start of each Parliament the Council of Ministers and the Council of Opposition each appoints a member of the FGCO who would serve for the duration of 3 Parliaments. Half the membership comes from the government and half from the opposition. Half are from the cabinet and the opposition council and half are appointed members with long terms of office.

The FGCO would currently have 6 Conservatives, 5 Liberals, and 1 NDP. This would include 3 Liberal ministers, 3 Conservatives in the opposition council, 3 conservative members, 2 liberal members, and 1 NDP member. The approval of the FGCO would be required for any advertising by the government of Canada and this needs the vote of 8 of the 12. Control of the Government of Canada’s website would be under the jurisdiction of the FGCO. Non partisan and not run out of the PMO and doesn’t stand a chance of happening. Some variation of the same old is all we can expect.

Here’s the letter I just mailed (Yes, Canada post kind) to my Liberal MP and see what Mrs. Marie-Claude Bibeau is going to be worth.

Dear Mrs Bibeau:

I was truly shocked to read a news article on how the Commons committees were going to be done. What you are supporting is fundamentally wrong. I propose a different way of doing the committees of the House of Commons then what “Real Change” is doing now.

24 committees with 16 seats on each for 384 committee assignments

Party

House

Committee seats

Final seats

Fixed

Assigned

Liberal

184

209.04

209

8 (192)

17

Conservative

99

112.47 (+1)

113

4 (96)

17

NDP

44

49.99 (+1)

50

2 (48)

2

Bloc

10

11.36

11

0 (0)

11

Green

1

1.14

1

0 (0)

1

Independents

0

0.00

0

0 (0)

0

Total

338

382

384

14 (336)

48

There are a total of 384 seats on the 24 committees and they are to be distributed to the Parties in direct proportion to their seats in the House of Commons. Independents are treated as another Party in the House. A Party’s House seats is divided by the full House and multiplied by the number of committee assignments (384). The remainder is dropped and any extra seats to get to 384 are awarded to the party with the highest decimal remainder. A Party’s fixed number of seats on a committee is the minimum they will have on all committees and within parentheses the total number of seats. Assigned is the number of seats their House Leader chooses to bring their number of seats up to their seat total. There are 2 unassigned seats on each committee to be assigned by the Parties for a total of the last 48 committee seats.

The unassigned seats are chosen by the Party’s House Leaders in order of their Party’s standing in the House with one seat chosen by each in each round. First round goes the Liberal House leader, Conservative, NDP, Bloc, and the Green. If there were any Independents the most senior member would get to choose a committee assignment. The second round would be the Liberals chose one, Conservative, NDP, and Bloc. For the 3rd to 11th rounds there would only be the Liberal, Conservative, and Bloc. The Liberals and Conservatives choose the twelve last committee assignments in rounds 12 to 17. Each Party can choose only 1 unassigned seat on each committee.

The process to determine committee assignments for the members is done similar to the choosing of the unassigned committee seats. The Parties, round by round, choose committee seats in order of their standing in the House. At least half of the Party’s seats on each committee are chosen by the members themselves in order of their seniority in caucus. The House Leader or Deputy House leader assigns the remainder. These positions are to be elected directly by the members of that Party’s caucus by secret ballot in the House of Commons chamber. The winner by majority vote becomes that Party’s House Leader and the runner up the Deputy House leader. The Leader assigns the majority of the remainder and the Deputy leader the rest. If it’s 2 seats then it’s 1 seat assigned by each.

Party

Committee seats

Members choice

Leader assigns

Deputy assigns

Liberal

9

5

3

1

Liberal

8

4

3

1

Conservative

5

3

1

1

Conservative

4

2

1

1

NDP

3

2

1

0

NDP

2

1

1

0

Bloc / Green

1

1

0

0

In the first round of choosing committee assignments the most senior Liberal member chooses a committee to sit on. Then the most senior members of the Conservatives, NDP, and the Bloc Parties choose a committee seat. The Green party has only one committee assignment so that goes to its only MP. This process repeats with the next most senior members choosing a committee to sit on until all the committee assignments that are chosen by the choice of the members are filled. After that when a Party’s turn is up in a round it’s that Party’s House Leader the assigns a seat to a member. The next time after that the Deputy leader assigns one then back to the Leader the time after that. This continues until all the 384 committee seats on the 24 committees are filled.

This idea has it’s basis on what I thought about the situation in the 1980s for the US House of Representatives where the Democrats had a higher percentage of seats on the House committees then they had in the full chamber. Again fundamentally wrong and every member of a legislative body should get to serve on at least 1 of its committees.

The three choices:

This doesn’t refer to Stevie, Tom, and Justin. The three choices are a reform of the government formation process. In a tight three way race it is not inconceivable that the party that has the most seats in a minority situation is the party that got the third most votes in the General election or worst yet a majority. What if the incumbent PM refused to step down even though their party has the third most seats but argues they got the most in the popular vote? Anyone remember December of 2008? It is all left to a patronage appointee the Governor-General to decide the issue and with the incumbent PM right there insisting they must do what ever they say or overthrow our democracy. The three choices set out clear rules what is to be done after each election.

Largest: The leader of the party with the most seats is called upon to form a government. If the seat count is equal then the one with the larger popular vote. No non-confidence motions, no vote can bring down a government. This is replaced by a motion of dissolution. By an absolute majority (170 / 338) the House can dissolve Parliament and trigger new elections. It can’t replace a government only trigger new elections. The PM can’t ask the Governor-General for early elections. It’s fixed the next election is on the set election day or an early election triggered by a motion of dissolution passed by the Commons.

House election: At the start of each Parliament the Speaker after the members of the House of Commons are sworn in asks “who should the Governor-General call upon to form a government”? The four most endorsed candidates are invited to Rideau Hall and asked to form a council-designate, a government-in-waiting. After each leader forms a proposed government of say 16 to 20 members the Speaker puts the question to the House “which of these councils-designate has the confidence of this House”? The two with the least are dropped from the second ballot. The Commons votes a second time with the winner becoming the Council of Ministers and the loser the Council of Opposition. As with the above no vote in the House triggers an election only an absolute majority passing a motion of dissolution can trigger an election before the set election day. No vote can replace the current government with another. The Council of Ministers is the government for the duration of that Parliament.

Separate election: The same as a municipal election namely a vote for a mayor, the executive election, and a vote for the councillor, the legislative election. In this case a vote for an executive council to be the government in the next Parliament and a vote for your Member of Parliament. The executive and legislative elections are separate and institute a preference ballot. If on the first count of the ballots a candidate got a majority their elected. No candidate got a majority, count the ballots a second time with only the top two being counted and the one with the majority is elected. In order for an executive council of again say 16 to 20 members to get on the ballot they must be endorsed by the candidates for the House of Commons in the last election. Each candidate has votes equal to their popular vote. The four most endorsed executive councils are on the ballot. In this there is no early elections. Parliament just like municipal elections has a fixed term and set election day.